2004 GTO looks like a Grand Prix???WTF???
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 10
From: Jamesburg, NJ USA
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Darth Xed:
If anything GTO should be more of a daring, breakaway design, because why does it need to appeal to a broad market??? They are only making 20,000 per year!
It's the perfect chance to do something different... not fade into the woodwork, lookswise anyway.
</font>
If anything GTO should be more of a daring, breakaway design, because why does it need to appeal to a broad market??? They are only making 20,000 per year!
It's the perfect chance to do something different... not fade into the woodwork, lookswise anyway.
</font>
------------------
1998 Dark Blue Metallic
Formula
327 hp
K&N air filter
chip mod
Brut stop brakes
[This message has been edited by 98 Blue Formula (edited June 26, 2002).]
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by 98 Blue Formula:
Do you really think GM would dump millions of dollars into a 20,000 a year car to make it a breakaway design? A car that we dont even know if its going to be received well? Come on, maybe if it does well and becomes a 75,000 to 90,000 a year, made in the states car, that will be when you will see a substantial redesign of the car, maybe. From what I am hearing, most people I have talked to and have shown the picture of the 2004 GTO to really like the clean design of the car. A number of people thought it was a new BMW (say, isnt that the idea GM is trying for with Pontiac?). When the saw the GTO name on it, most were like very happy. One guy I spoke to said, and I quote, "Wow, at last I can get a GTO to drive during the week, and leave my 71 for the weekends and nice weather. What a great modern day interpertation of the Goat." So I think, in my opinion, that GM has started off well with this clean, more conservitive vision, and I am sure we will see more "radical" versions coming in the future. Maybe even an 2006 Orbit Orange GTO Judge with functional Ram Air and modern Rally II or Honeycomb wheels. Would be nice!
</font>
Do you really think GM would dump millions of dollars into a 20,000 a year car to make it a breakaway design? A car that we dont even know if its going to be received well? Come on, maybe if it does well and becomes a 75,000 to 90,000 a year, made in the states car, that will be when you will see a substantial redesign of the car, maybe. From what I am hearing, most people I have talked to and have shown the picture of the 2004 GTO to really like the clean design of the car. A number of people thought it was a new BMW (say, isnt that the idea GM is trying for with Pontiac?). When the saw the GTO name on it, most were like very happy. One guy I spoke to said, and I quote, "Wow, at last I can get a GTO to drive during the week, and leave my 71 for the weekends and nice weather. What a great modern day interpertation of the Goat." So I think, in my opinion, that GM has started off well with this clean, more conservitive vision, and I am sure we will see more "radical" versions coming in the future. Maybe even an 2006 Orbit Orange GTO Judge with functional Ram Air and modern Rally II or Honeycomb wheels. Would be nice!
</font>
What I am saying is that they could have made theat front clip look a hundred million different ways... pretty much all for the same cost. They chose something that is too familiar, too safe, too pre-outdated looking, because of the whole Grand Prix thing.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 124
From: Milwaukee, WI
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ProudPony:
What kills me about this topic is that a relative few of us are trying to help GM come out with a "better" package with broader appeal. That's all. But many act like we are the enemy, or are trying to do away with a good thing. It seems like so many are just happy to get anything RWD and V8 from GM right now, they are willing to overlook the wants/desires of certain groups to get it. Alienating groups of buyers, especially loyal ones or enthusiastic ones, just is not wise. GM should embrace these groups and seek thier advise/input into what a car should be. Un-freakin-believable.
AS AN OUTSIDER - The more I write on this topic, the more I have come to realize why the F4's got into the situation they are in, and why GM is going down the path it is. Look at the attitude of GM's most loyal buyers...(that's you folks in this kind of forum)
OK - yeah, I'll take that.
Um, yeah, that's good enough for me, for now anyways.
I don't really like the looks - they're OK - but man does this thing have an engine!
Well, I'll bet the next model will be lots better.
Sorry if this flames you all, but I'm just being honest.</font>
What kills me about this topic is that a relative few of us are trying to help GM come out with a "better" package with broader appeal. That's all. But many act like we are the enemy, or are trying to do away with a good thing. It seems like so many are just happy to get anything RWD and V8 from GM right now, they are willing to overlook the wants/desires of certain groups to get it. Alienating groups of buyers, especially loyal ones or enthusiastic ones, just is not wise. GM should embrace these groups and seek thier advise/input into what a car should be. Un-freakin-believable.
AS AN OUTSIDER - The more I write on this topic, the more I have come to realize why the F4's got into the situation they are in, and why GM is going down the path it is. Look at the attitude of GM's most loyal buyers...(that's you folks in this kind of forum)
OK - yeah, I'll take that.
Um, yeah, that's good enough for me, for now anyways.
I don't really like the looks - they're OK - but man does this thing have an engine!
Well, I'll bet the next model will be lots better.
Sorry if this flames you all, but I'm just being honest.</font>
Where is the integrity and drive for excellence?? Has the current situation driven the group to accept anything remotely performance oriented with a V8 & RWD? If the GTO were not announced, and two more years went by would you guys be excited about an AZTEC with V8 RWD and named the camaro?
What does it take to break down the integrity level of the GM perf. group? Apparently NOT MUCH!
Again, the only thing that a few of us posting the contrary opinions are asking for is NOTHING LESS THAN THE BEST. I will repeat: IF CHRYSLER, and FORD can produce LOW-VOLUME specialty vehicles WHY CAN'T WE!!!
------------------
'69 GTO 400 H.O. 350 HP
'96 Bonneville 231 S.D.
'96 Sunfire 2.4L H.O.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by formula79:
Broader appeal huh?
The more you add crap like scoops and spoilers to a car the less appealing it is. Its like the new CTS, 50% like it, 50% don't. The problem with this is off the bat you loose 50% of the market. By making the new car understated they can attract a larger audience. Don't worry though I thi k we will see plenty of scoops and hood tachs riding around on GTO's after teh aftermarket gets involved.
</font>
Broader appeal huh?
The more you add crap like scoops and spoilers to a car the less appealing it is. Its like the new CTS, 50% like it, 50% don't. The problem with this is off the bat you loose 50% of the market. By making the new car understated they can attract a larger audience. Don't worry though I thi k we will see plenty of scoops and hood tachs riding around on GTO's after teh aftermarket gets involved.
</font>
Silly me, I've been doing this all wrong for years then. I'll start searching for my "350hp, scoopless, bland, limited-edition, Accord 4-door investment" first thing in the morning.
formula79, you are mixing the terms "mass appeal" and "limited run" on the same car. Don't you see a problem with this?
Darth Xed nailed it (again); Since there will only be 20K units, and we all know that they will sell out due to exclusivity alone, why not make them a touch more aggressive in appearance?
Why call it GTO - rekindle "exitement" for Pontiac models.
Pontiac Slogan - "We Build Excitement!"
Why put in a 5.7L V8 - Excitement!
Why have a world-class IRS - Excitement!
What should the body/design say - "understated"... Yeah, works for me.
BTW, can somebody give me directions to a Caddy dealer or a Lincoln dealer? CTSi or LS MOD5.0 - at least they have their own identities.
[This message has been edited by ProudPony (edited June 27, 2002).]
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 10
From: Jamesburg, NJ USA
All I am saying here is that everybody is jumping down everybody elses throat over the first official drawing, and I think that is wrong. We still dont really know what the car will look like 100%. I agree that GM needs to kick it in the *** when it comes to design, but here lies another problem. Many people on this board say they want something more daring, more foward thinking, more different from the norm. I say thats great. As a designer I love the idea of pushing the design curve. But then most of these same people get pissed and bent over the design of vehicles like the Aztek (not the best looking car, but not that bad) and the Avalanche (which I happen to love, expecially with the lower body panels painted with the whole truck). Chrysler and Ford have done great jobs with the PT Cruiser and the new Thunderbird, but those are designs that so many on this board hate because of the whole "Retro" debate.
This is not a flame, just my observation. But I still am amazed that all this heat is coming from a design sketch. Maybe a lot of people have gotten easy on GM with the designs of the F4s. I dont know.
I should have kept my 78 Trans AM. Things were simple back then
------------------
1998 Dark Blue Metallic
Formula
327 hp
K&N air filter
chip mod
Brut stop brakes
This is not a flame, just my observation. But I still am amazed that all this heat is coming from a design sketch. Maybe a lot of people have gotten easy on GM with the designs of the F4s. I dont know.
I should have kept my 78 Trans AM. Things were simple back then
------------------
1998 Dark Blue Metallic
Formula
327 hp
K&N air filter
chip mod
Brut stop brakes
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 124
From: Milwaukee, WI
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by 98 Blue Formula:
All I am saying here is that everybody is jumping down everybody elses throat over the first official drawing, and I think that is wrong. We still dont really know what the car will look like 100%. I agree that GM needs to kick it in the *** when it comes to design, but here lies another problem. Many people on this board say they want something more daring, more foward thinking, more different from the norm. I say thats great. As a designer I love the idea of pushing the design curve. But then most of these same people get pissed and bent over the design of vehicles like the Aztek (not the best looking car, but not that bad) and the Avalanche (which I happen to love, expecially with the lower body panels painted with the whole truck). Chrysler and Ford have done great jobs with the PT Cruiser and the new Thunderbird, but those are designs that so many on this board hate because of the whole "Retro" debate.
This is not a flame, just my observation. But I still am amazed that all this heat is coming from a design sketch. Maybe a lot of people have gotten easy on GM with the designs of the F4s. I dont know.
I should have kept my 78 Trans AM. Things were simple back then
</font>
All I am saying here is that everybody is jumping down everybody elses throat over the first official drawing, and I think that is wrong. We still dont really know what the car will look like 100%. I agree that GM needs to kick it in the *** when it comes to design, but here lies another problem. Many people on this board say they want something more daring, more foward thinking, more different from the norm. I say thats great. As a designer I love the idea of pushing the design curve. But then most of these same people get pissed and bent over the design of vehicles like the Aztek (not the best looking car, but not that bad) and the Avalanche (which I happen to love, expecially with the lower body panels painted with the whole truck). Chrysler and Ford have done great jobs with the PT Cruiser and the new Thunderbird, but those are designs that so many on this board hate because of the whole "Retro" debate.
This is not a flame, just my observation. But I still am amazed that all this heat is coming from a design sketch. Maybe a lot of people have gotten easy on GM with the designs of the F4s. I dont know.
I should have kept my 78 Trans AM. Things were simple back then
</font>
I think we should be excited, but not expending energy pointlessly. I think GM needs to hear our comments, early in the design phase before it's too late! Does anyone know how and if it's possible to give feedback to the design group????
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 100
From: South Bend, Indiana
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by 98 Blue Formula:
.
In the time being, anybody think that if the GTO does well, Pontiac will start using it in the Nascar Winston Cup and Busch series racing instead of the Grand Prix?
</font>
.
In the time being, anybody think that if the GTO does well, Pontiac will start using it in the Nascar Winston Cup and Busch series racing instead of the Grand Prix?
</font>
A: GM races cars it wants to sell more of. The GTO is so limited build, it wont need racing support to sell it.
B: The Monaro/GTO has too small of a rear deck lid area, which means limited rear downforce available. The car they race will have the longest trunklid available to them.
C: By the time the GTO gets here, NASCAR may have the common body template anway, and it wont matter what the factory version looks like.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Reno Leigh:
No I dont.
A: GM races cars it wants to sell more of. The GTO is so limited build, it wont need racing support to sell it.
B: The Monaro/GTO has too small of a rear deck lid area, which means limited rear downforce available. The car they race will have the longest trunklid available to them.
C: By the time the GTO gets here, NASCAR may have the common body template anway, and it wont matter what the factory version looks like.
</font>
No I dont.
A: GM races cars it wants to sell more of. The GTO is so limited build, it wont need racing support to sell it.
B: The Monaro/GTO has too small of a rear deck lid area, which means limited rear downforce available. The car they race will have the longest trunklid available to them.
C: By the time the GTO gets here, NASCAR may have the common body template anway, and it wont matter what the factory version looks like.
</font>
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by GOATCRAZY:
... The GM perf. crowd is acting like a bunch of teenagers that are just happy to play hide the salami with anything that moves and has two legs.
Where is the integrity and drive for excellence?? Has the current situation driven the group to accept anything remotely performance oriented with a V8 & RWD? If the GTO were not announced, and two more years went by would you guys be excited about an AZTEC with V8 RWD and named the camaro?
What does it take to break down the integrity level of the GM perf. group? Apparently NOT MUCH! [QUOTE]
Let me guess. You are still bent simply because the new GTO doesn't look like a 1965 Pontiac Tempest, and this has nothing to do with the fact that this new GTO actually has truly serious......performance?
Originally posted by GOATCRAZY:
1. GTO was an option on Pontiac Tempest, not a separate carline. There is a really big difference.
2. Viper, Prowler, though extremely low volume cars, cost alot and need long runs to make a profit.
3. T-Bird's case, it's based on an existing car chassis, but cost $40,000.
4. If you honestly think that simply & solely because this car doesn't look like a 1965 Pontiac Tempest that GM's performance group is in the dumpster, I'd say I am really someone else is running things there.
... The GM perf. crowd is acting like a bunch of teenagers that are just happy to play hide the salami with anything that moves and has two legs.
Where is the integrity and drive for excellence?? Has the current situation driven the group to accept anything remotely performance oriented with a V8 & RWD? If the GTO were not announced, and two more years went by would you guys be excited about an AZTEC with V8 RWD and named the camaro?
What does it take to break down the integrity level of the GM perf. group? Apparently NOT MUCH! [QUOTE]
Let me guess. You are still bent simply because the new GTO doesn't look like a 1965 Pontiac Tempest, and this has nothing to do with the fact that this new GTO actually has truly serious......performance?
Originally posted by GOATCRAZY:
Again, the only thing that a few of us posting the contrary opinions are asking for is NOTHING LESS THAN THE BEST. I will repeat: IF CHRYSLER, and FORD can produce LOW-VOLUME specialty vehicles WHY CAN'T WE!!!
</font>
2. Viper, Prowler, though extremely low volume cars, cost alot and need long runs to make a profit.
3. T-Bird's case, it's based on an existing car chassis, but cost $40,000.
4. If you honestly think that simply & solely because this car doesn't look like a 1965 Pontiac Tempest that GM's performance group is in the dumpster, I'd say I am really someone else is running things there.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 2,224
From: CNY
GuionM,
Actually, the GTO became it's own carline in '66 or '67. Still based off the Tempest & Lemans but with it's own VIN body style designator. This lasted until '71 I think, when, in '72, the GTO became an option again on the Lemans. And in '74, it was an option on the Ventura.
I'd rather you here it from a friendly source than have it presented to you in a negative fashion from one of the 7 or 8 dissenters.
Actually, the GTO became it's own carline in '66 or '67. Still based off the Tempest & Lemans but with it's own VIN body style designator. This lasted until '71 I think, when, in '72, the GTO became an option again on the Lemans. And in '74, it was an option on the Ventura.
I'd rather you here it from a friendly source than have it presented to you in a negative fashion from one of the 7 or 8 dissenters.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by HuJass:
GuionM,
Actually, the GTO became it's own carline in '66 or '67. Still based off the Tempest & Lemans but with it's own VIN body style designator. This lasted until '71 I think, when, in '72, the GTO became an option again on the Lemans. And in '74, it was an option on the Ventura.
I'd rather you here it from a friendly source than have it presented to you in a negative fashion from one of the 7 or 8 dissenters.</font>
GuionM,
Actually, the GTO became it's own carline in '66 or '67. Still based off the Tempest & Lemans but with it's own VIN body style designator. This lasted until '71 I think, when, in '72, the GTO became an option again on the Lemans. And in '74, it was an option on the Ventura.
I'd rather you here it from a friendly source than have it presented to you in a negative fashion from one of the 7 or 8 dissenters.</font>
There is still some good in you... I can feel it.
Search your feelings father, you will find it to be true.
Switch back to the good side father. You can do it!!!
I will help you...
(We need a little humor in here somewhere!)
Registered User
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 3,647
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
I guess I wouldn't care so much but they are also gonna cost way more than F-bodies so blah!!
And they have 302hp not 350hp.
------------------
'93 Camaro Z28 Automatic with a ZL1 hood.
No bottle.
No blower.
383 cubic inch serving of horsepower...hold the rice please.
Thats all you need to know.
ICQ: 23984221
Gripenfelter's Homepage
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by me are not necessarily supported or indicative of the Government of Canada or any other Federal Employee.
And they have 302hp not 350hp.
------------------
'93 Camaro Z28 Automatic with a ZL1 hood.
No bottle.
No blower.
383 cubic inch serving of horsepower...hold the rice please.
Thats all you need to know.
ICQ: 23984221
Gripenfelter's Homepage
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by me are not necessarily supported or indicative of the Government of Canada or any other Federal Employee.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,724
From: Hebron, KY
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gripenfelter:
I guess I wouldn't care so much but they are also gonna cost way more than F-bodies so blah!!
And they have 302hp not 350hp.
</font>
I guess I wouldn't care so much but they are also gonna cost way more than F-bodies so blah!!
And they have 302hp not 350hp.
</font>